The Book of Elongated Man

[Margloth]

For what it’s worth, I was taking into account that a melee figure 2 spaces away could still “close the gap” to attack Elongated Man. My concern is finding another figure (Jean Grey? Graviton?) who can lock down a figure’s movement at range and keep the figure from attacking altogether. Although I suppose that’s enough What Ifs? and enough points invested to not worry about it too much.

[quozl]

If a figure 2 spaces away is engaged with EM, he doesn't need to move closer to attack with Range 1 because once you're engaged, you don't look at Range.

[Margloth]

Uh... is that spelled out in the rules?

[Ronin]

No. The rules do say that figures with a range of 1 can only attack adjacent figures, and that you don't need line of sight to do so. They don't say that you can always attack figures you're engaged with. The rules, in general, don't fluidly handle the idea of engagement being decoupled from adjacency.

[japes]

Which sort of goes to Soundwarp's point I think. I really liked the idea of the power but the execution may be more difficult.

[quozl]

I just double-checked. Ronin's right. So this would need to be changed to something like this:

RIDICULOUS REACH
For purposes of engagement, Elongated Man is considered to occupy every space within 1 space of himself. If Elongated Man rolls a skull against a figure leaving an engagement with him, that figure may not leave the engagement with Elongated Man this turn.

[IAmBatman]

Could we just say adjacent instead of engaged in the original text?

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by Margloth

For what it’s worth, I was taking into account that a melee figure 2 spaces away could still “close the gap” to attack Elongated Man. My concern is finding another figure (Jean Grey? Graviton?) who can lock down a figure’s movement at range and keep the figure from attacking altogether. Although I suppose that’s enough What Ifs? and enough points invested to not worry about it too much.

What does Elongated Man add that Jean and Graviton aren’t accomplishing on their own in those examples?

[Scapemage]

Originally Posted by Yodaking

RIDICULOUS REACH
When an enemy figure within 2 clear sight spaces of Elongated Man moves 3 spaces away from Elongated Man, Elongated Man may roll for a leaving engagement attack versus that figure. If Elongated Man rolls a skull against a figure leaving an engagement with him, that figure may not leave the engagement with Elongated Man this turn.

This wording might be the most clear way to go about it, but it does feel a bit clunky.

Originally Posted by quozl

RIDICULOUS REACH
For purposes of engagement, Elongated Man is considered to occupy every space within 1 space of himself. If Elongated Man rolls a skull against a figure leaving an engagement with him, that figure may not leave the engagement with Elongated Man this turn.

This wording reads a lot cleaner, but I would need clarification that it works the way we think it does.


I believe we're all agreed on what the power should do, which is that it should allow LEAs when figures leave a 2-space aura around him. Getting the right wording is tough, but I think the options could be good bets.

[IAmBatman]

If you just want a proximity wounding power, base it off of Poison Ivy or War-Machine.

The original intent was full rngagement, including ranged figure lockdown.

The SP is probably too complex/wordy right now, though, so I understand if you have to make cuts somewhere.

[Soundwarp SG-1]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

No the original intent is as it’s written. I was clarifying for Margloth.

I think quozl and I would benefit from a specific example of odd interactions. Not that we don’t trust you, we just aren’t seeing it.

Well, my example is pretty much this thread. There are like two or three very different interpretations of what the power actually does already? Any of which could have a wonky interaction with some power somewhere that I have to check for, as this is the kind of power that tends to get sneaky broken interactions. So right now the power is just too vague and murky for me to give my 'CRB Approved' stamp to.

I just feel like we could get similar results to the intent(s) of the power with mechanics that spell out what it is y'all are actually trying to do. The power idea is innovative, which I'm all for, but the current mechanic feels wonky for the sake of wonkiness. I think if we divorce ourselves from the idea that the 'tie people up at range' theme has to be expressed with this 'considered to be engaged' mechanic it will lead to a better power in the long run.

Originally Posted by Yodaking

If two figures are engaged with one another, one figure can move around the other one without leaving engagement and attack from a different spot on the map. So I'm not sure what you are getting at here with Ares.

There isn't an interaction with Ares. Batman responded to Margloth in the same post as the one he responded to me in without a quote or what-not, so I thought he was still talking to me and that he wanted the power to have two 'layers' of engagement or something like that (which would have interacted with Ares). So no issue, just misreading his post on my part.

[IAmBatman]

Overlapping posts is part of the confusion issue. But I understand. Any thoughts on whether changing "engaged" to "adjacent" would do the trick? Or am I trying too hard? Wouldn't be the first time, but y'all know I like to push the envelope when it comes to the mechanics of the game.